Many people ask me why I am not writing anything about the elections. What to do, whether to participate and whom to vote for?
This article is not paid for from the electoral fund of any party or any candidate, and therefore, according to the current rules, I simply have no right to call to vote for someone or against someone.
And then there is a symbolic event: in the name of the Russian Federation, the phrase “smart voting” is prohibited from being issued in the search engines “Google” and “Yandex”.
And in the vaunted domestic “Sputnik”? If I’m not mistaken, until recently, government money was allocated and spent on such a “patriotic” search engine? And here’s a seditious thought: what if the patriotic “Sputnik” (as an allegory to everything that we do for state money) would succeed, that is, if state money for once were actually used, so, maybe it wouldn’t be necessary to prohibit the phrase “smart voting” – there would be no urgent need?
And so – as long as we have such a continuous “satellite” all around (in order to avoid problems with the publication, I have to keep in mind only and only the search engine), there is only one thing left – to prohibit. Anything that is desirable with the words “smart”, “reasonable”, plus something “rational”, “expedient”, not absolutely idiotic … But at the same time, “honest”, “worthy”, “promising”, in general, giving hope for some future.
But back to the elections. Smart voting is not possible.
A stupid vote?
This is please. So that everyone would argue endlessly as to which side to break the egg, blunt or sharp. And in this irreconcilable, principled discussion, we are offered not even two, but a damn dozen plus one options – as many as fourteen parties. I don’t want to say that they all look the same – both parties and their ideologies (where they really are), and people are very different.
But, pay attention, on any topic, in any direction – at least two, or even three seemingly (by name) similar samples. Even the “green” – and those a couple. It is clear: in order to smudge as much as possible the votes of all who are not for the current government, who are at least for some kind of alternative to it.
And we are still so independent and self-willed. And it seems to everyone that he sees better who is dearer to him, who should be supported. There is even a naive adherence to principles: they say, let those for whom I vote and do not pass, but I will act on principle, I will support those who say exactly the words that I share, those who are dearer to me. And poor people are unaware that manipulators work not only on large-scale areas, but also on “sectors”.
One thing is convincing to some, another is no less convincing to others. Their task is by no means to prevent people from voting, let’s say conditionally, not for the first party of the “blue”, but for the second, seemingly, alternative to it. No, the task is for the voices to be divided, more precisely, to be spread approximately equally. So that, as a result, none of them passed at all, and then the votes were redistributed among the leaders.
In general, any willfulness, but not organized, that does not allow realizing, albeit not ideal, but at least some, somewhat unified will is only welcomed.
It is the same and even more obvious – with elections in single-mandate constituencies. Let me remind you: there was once a time, three decades ago, when parliamentary elections were held in two rounds. That is, I would say, seriously. In those distant times, voting in the first round simply for the one who is dearer to you was not ideal, but still more reasonable – it was a vote to enter the second round.
And there, of course, on good terms, it was necessary to come to an agreement so that more or less co-oriented candidates would not mutually neutralize each other, letting someone third go ahead. But already in the second round, voting very often bore the character of, as they say, not choosing the best, but preventing the obviously unacceptable. That is, in the end, a relatively random person could slip through and then, but that system still did not allow sneaking, crawling unnoticed by the one against whom there is a clear majority.
Now the rules are absolutely ideal for those who would never have been supported by voters in a direct, open confrontation in the second round. In the current one-round system, it is not difficult to gain a relative majority due to the fact that, with administrative support, money and rogue “political strategists”, the voices of opponents can be smeared, including between artificially similar candidates, up to the nomination of spoilers with the same surname. all cynicism has been openly practiced in this electoral system for more than two decades.
That is, the famous “divide and conquer” was supplemented by “fool and smear the voices” – and the matter is easily done.
What, really, you will agree, stupid in the current situation, unorganized voting could resist?
Unfortunately, only what is now prohibited in search engines.
And stupid non-voting?
This is even better. After all, there is no requirement for at least some minimum turnout threshold. Even if only one candidate from the ruling party comes and votes for himself, and everyone else is not allowed in one way or another, this will be enough.
And there is no full control over how many people actually voted. Previously, when elections were held on the same day and exclusively in person, at least theoretically it was possible to calculate how many people came to the polling stations. But now, when the voting is stretched out for three days, and even when the voting in electronic form is carried out in parallel, the observation of which, in principle, is a big question, who is even interested in whether you came to the polling station or not?
No, boycott, of course, it’s beautiful. And, it seems, in principle. Like “we are not them, and we do not play their dirty games.” But for some reason, Roskomnadzor does not come forward with a claim to ban the word “boycott” or the phrase “boycott of the elections”, it does not go to court. Why would that? But against any attempt to organize on a large enough scale, unite and work out a unified voting tactics, as we see, they are categorically against.
And after that, someone will seriously try to convince the public that the current government is most of all afraid that we will not come to the polls, is it just that it is horrified by the threat of our boycott?
At the same time, it is impossible not to agree that the games are dirty. And the purely artificial difficulty in the creation and functioning of political parties brought to perfection, and laws prohibiting participation in elections for cooperation with allegedly “extremists”, and even recognizing “extremists” retroactively, and arbitrariness in recognizing the collected signatures in support of candidates as “invalid” , and the extremely impudent removal from the distance of at least some independent and capable candidates alternative to the current government, and the stretching of the vote by as much as three days, which makes the procedure for observing voting at polling stations almost unrealizable, and, finally, a purely artificial and unjustified restriction of observation , including connecting citizens to video surveillance in real time.
Plus – the cherry on top – electronic voting: experts will confirm that the well-known “struggle between sword and shield” is still in its infancy, and there is absolutely no reason to trust the secret voting in electronic form organized by the current government, even the slightest …
Obviously, everything has been done in order to expand the possibilities of falsification, and to limit the means of observation and suppression of falsifications, respectively. Mockery, you see, is overt, demonstrative.
In such a situation, what does a self-respecting person naturally want to do? It is clear: on such conditions with these thimblers – not to participate in any games.
And they, up there, must be terribly upset?
Yes, they completely deliberately and purposefully, openly demonstratively did everything in order to instill in us complete disgust for the elections, literally, so that the gag reflex would work.
Please note: the company, with the assistance of our fairest court in the world, arrogated to itself the right to the brand “smart vote”, not other than the production of sheep wool. And it is not for nothing that political scientists call this power “PRocracy” – the language of symbols is more than familiar to it. Can you imagine how these “PR people” in the government rejoiced: how did we (they – us, the people) beat them? This power is clearly demonstrating to us: these “rams” – you and me – are allowed to be sheared only by them.
What is such a “smart vote” for these rams?
Thus, I myself am in complete disgust at what we allowed the authorities to turn the elections – a mechanism for forming power in the country. I am not calling anyone to anything. But let’s be without illusions: our type of “boycott” to the authorities is definitely not cold and not hot.
And the last thing. Are these elections in any way fateful for the country?
We do not elect the president, on whom everything depends on us, especially after the “Amendment to the Constitution”. And only the State Duma, regional and local legislative assemblies and councils. Their powers are extremely castrated. The elections themselves – I would call them in their present form an obscene parody, so they will attract …
But there are specific people who, even in this difficult situation, did not fold their hands, but continue to fight – with the forces that they have, and in those conditions that are definitely not favorable. Where there are such people, and if you know them, can you not support them?
The country will definitely not change from our actions or inaction in these elections. But specific people, having received or not received our support, in any case, having gained important experience, maybe tomorrow they will become leaders and teams capable of changing the country, giving it a chance for development.
In any case, so that no power in the future dares so clearly to let us know that we are nothing more than sheep for it …